Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2009-06-06/Montreal

Where is the dispute?
The dispute is taking place on Talk:Montreal with regards to the Montreal article. There is also discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard, where an edit war is developing.

Who is involved?
Users who have agreed to follow wp:dr


 * User:rerutled (submitting the dispute)

Other users who have chimed in on the dispute:


 * User:Sunray
 * User:Mathieugp

What is the dispute?
We have a dispute on the Talk:Montreal page, which centers around which of two references is authoritative. The status quo and editor's consensus is that the following lede is stable, and therefore preferable:

Montreal is the second-largest primarily French-speaking city in the world, after Paris.

I proposed the following replacement, due to a more authoritative reference:

Montreal is the third-largest Francophone city in the world, after Paris and Kinshasa.

I have a long argument (on the Talk:Montreal page, or more briefly here.

What would you like to change about this?
I'd like the Nadeau reference, and the statement that Montreal is the third largest Francophone city behind Paris and Kinshasa, to replace the second-largest city language and reference.

How do you think we can help?
The editors on the talk page are not debating the authoritativeness of the Nadeau reference in comparison to the Roussopolous reference. If you would go to the talk page and say (if it is indeed true):

"Hey, folks, it's wiki policy that facts must be backed by authoritative reference, and that the most authoritative reference takes precedence. There's a proposal here to substitute status quo language with other language based on (it's said) a more authoritative reference.  The only arguments you folks have put out there have been contradiction and responding to tone -- no refutation at all. What you ought to be doing is giving arguments for why the existing reference is more authoritative than the proposed one -- but none of you have even tried.  Editors should get behind a consensus led by the most authoritative references - regardless of whether that means the facts in the wiki article must change.  That's how wiki improves."

Or:

Something which contradicts my position.

Mediator notes
Hello, my name is Vicenarian, and I've volunteered to help mediate this dispute. I will now inform the main listed parties that the case has been opened. To ensure this process is open and fair to all, I would ask that all listed parties sign below to agree both to mediation and to me as mediator. Thank you. Vicenarian (T · C) 17:03, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Administrative notes
has been blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet since this case request was filed and thus will be removed as a listed party. Vicenarian (T · C) 17:10, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Upon review, I noticed that the blocked user was the party that opened the case. Considering this and its age, this case may be stale. I will add, sockmaster of , as a party to the case, and allow time for participants to comment as to whether mediation is still required. Vicenarian  (T · C) 17:23, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * A previously listed party has removed him/herself from the proceedings. Vicenarian  (T · C) 19:52, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * That would be me. I didn't agree to take part in this mediation as I didn't believe there was any concrete dispute.  The only "dispute," as best as I could tell, was that one editor (and, later, his socks) disagreed with a reliable source, and used the incomplete citation of said source to build some limited support for his position.  If any editor in good standing wishes to take up the mediation on behalf of the blocked user or his socks, I would reconsider participating, but it seems more than likely that any such process would just be fodder and would not assist in improving the article.  user: J  aka justen (talk) 21:15, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Understood. I'll leave the case open for a little while in case there is a desire for mediation on this issue. If not, we'll close and move on. Vicenarian  (T · C) 21:32, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I guess I should take my name off too then, since I don't think I actually "agreed" to DR - although of course I will, similar to what J has said just above.
 * I think this probably qualifies as stale. The one editor may not have had a good grasp of how sourcing works, nor of how article-writing and consensus work, but they haven't edited much since in any case. The article has been modified to show in a footnote the information they believed essential, while still presenting the pertinent fact deemed important to the article lead by the consensus of commenters developed over the last few years. IMO, the dispute is settled, since both "sides" are now accomodated. Franamax (talk) 04:20, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Very well then, I will close this out. Thank you both for your timely responses. Take care and happy editing, Vicenarian  (T · C) 06:19, 23 July 2009 (UTC)